OTHER VOICES

Despite flaws, American justice system still the best

By Hale R. StancilSpecial to the Star-Banner

Published: Sunday, July 28, 2013 at 6:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Friday, July 26, 2013 at 4:44 p.m.

Having been a judge for nearly 31 years, I am somewhat surprised by the number of people who refuse to accept the Zimmerman jury's verdict of not guilty. If any person had additional evidence in the George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin confrontation, they should have stepped forward rather than complain after the verdict.

The mainstream media has played a major role in the dissemination of misinformation regarding the Zimmerman-Martin confrontation and trial.

It seems clear that the mainstream media was not objective in their presentation of the Zimmerman case. Clearly the pictures of Martin did not depict him as he appeared to Zimmerman. In addition, the words of Zimmerman were changed in an apparent attempt to make race an issue. Why can't the media be as fair as possible in their reporting? It often appears they do have an agenda, which may be one of the reasons the public's trust in mainstream-media television is at an all-time low.

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “While everyone has their right to their own opinion they don't have the right to their own facts.”

The criticism of the verdict in the Zimmerman case appears to be based on opinions generated from inaccurate reported facts, and the death of a child is always tragic and will, in most instances, galvanize the public in a demand for someone to be held accountable.

The not-guilty verdicts in both the Zimmerman trial and the trial of Casey Anthony have led some to believe that we need to change our system of justice, but exactly how is not said. After all, most people think that if someone is charged with a crime they are guilty, otherwise they would not have been charged.

No doubt, some would be willing to do away with the jury system and try cases differently. We could change the presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt wherein the accused would have to prove they are not guilty. We could lessen the proof required from beyond a reasonable doubt to the greater weight of the evidence. By making these and a few other changes, we could ensure more guilty verdicts.

The question is: What price are we willing to pay for justice? Would it be better if an innocent person was convicted rather than a guilty person go free?

Neither the state nor the defendant is entitled to a perfect trial. We do not live in a perfect society and trials are not presided over by perfect judges with perfect jurors. Witnesses do not have perfect memories and the lawyers, be they prosecutors and defense counsel, are not perfect. Mistakes are sometimes made.

Juries are composed of fair and impartial citizens who are, prior to selection, examined under oath to determine if they can be fair and impartial. All parties involved in the selection process concur and agree with the jurors selected. Jurors take an oath to base their decision solely and only on the evidence and the law, nothing more and nothing less. It has been my experience that all juries do their level best to make their decision based solely on the facts as they find them to be. I, as a judge, make a lot of decisions. Some of my decisions are easy and some are hard, but like the jury the decisions I make are based on the law and the evidence.

When we criticize the jury for the decisions they make, we lessen the desire of others to serve as jurors and demean those that serve. Before we criticize the jury we should stop and reflect that those who served were the only ones who sat in the courtroom and heard firsthand the witnesses testify and examined the evidence introduced. After selection and before reaching a verdict the jury is instructed not to speak to anyone or read anything about the case. Nor is the jury to discuss the case amongst themselves until they have received the judges final instructions.

I often wonder how many of those who criticize a jury's verdict started out unbiased and neutral? Did they watch the trial from start to finish? Did they understand the meaning of “reasonable doubt”?

The jury system, while more than 800 years old, has its problems. However, what alternatives would those critical of the outcome in the trials of George Zimmerman, Casey Anthony or O.J. Simpson suggest?

I have presided over hundreds of jury trials, and in some cases had I been a member of the jury would have fought for a different verdict. However, rather than criticize those who serve, I thank them for their service and encourage them to serve again. In addition I ask them for suggestions on ways we can improve our system of justice. Far too many citizens look at jury duty not as a service, but as a burden to be avoided. Good citizens make good jurors.

Jurors are similar to a referee — they call it like they see it based on the rules as they understand them and the way they see the evidence. Should the decision of the referee or umpire be changed because a majority of those present disagree with the call?

The independence of both the jury and the judiciary today is under attack. Both juries and judges are openly criticized for simply doing what their oath of office requires, i.e., making every decision based solely on the evidence and the law.

The right to trial by jury is one of the cornerstones of the foundation of freedoms which encompass the people and citizens of the United States. The jury trial is perhaps the strongest pillar of freedom between the individual and his government or, if the case is civil, between you and your neighbor. Citizens of the United States have three vital roles to fill: serving in the armed forces, voting and serving on juries. Our freedom and form of government is dependent upon citizens taking an active part in these three roles. The jury is the conscience of the community and the guardian of all freedom.

One of the most important protections we have is rooted in the independence of the jury system and the right to be tried by an impartial jury of one's peers. Peers mean equals. Every person who comes into the courtroom in America has the absolute right to have his or her case tried by a jury made up of citizens who are rich and poor, highly educated and unemployed, of every kind of religion.

In spite of the criticism and contempt we may sometimes have for our criminal justice system, I don't know anyone who would trade our criminal justice system for any other in the world.

While not perfect, I have never had any juror tell me they have a better way to resolve legal disputes. Until we can come up with a better system of justice, we should stick with the system we have in spite of its imperfections.

Hale R. Stancil is a circuit court for the 5th Judicial Circuit and sits in Ocala. He has been a judge for 31 years.

<p>Having been a judge for nearly 31 years, I am somewhat surprised by the number of people who refuse to accept the Zimmerman jury's verdict of not guilty. If any person had additional evidence in the George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin confrontation, they should have stepped forward rather than complain after the verdict.</p><p>The mainstream media has played a major role in the dissemination of misinformation regarding the Zimmerman-Martin confrontation and trial.</p><p>It seems clear that the mainstream media was not objective in their presentation of the Zimmerman case. Clearly the pictures of Martin did not depict him as he appeared to Zimmerman. In addition, the words of Zimmerman were changed in an apparent attempt to make race an issue. Why can't the media be as fair as possible in their reporting? It often appears they do have an agenda, which may be one of the reasons the public's trust in mainstream-media television is at an all-time low.</p><p>Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “While everyone has their right to their own opinion they don't have the right to their own facts.”</p><p>The criticism of the verdict in the Zimmerman case appears to be based on opinions generated from inaccurate reported facts, and the death of a child is always tragic and will, in most instances, galvanize the public in a demand for someone to be held accountable.</p><p>The not-guilty verdicts in both the Zimmerman trial and the trial of Casey Anthony have led some to believe that we need to change our system of justice, but exactly how is not said. After all, most people think that if someone is charged with a crime they are guilty, otherwise they would not have been charged.</p><p>No doubt, some would be willing to do away with the jury system and try cases differently. We could change the presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt wherein the accused would have to prove they are not guilty. We could lessen the proof required from beyond a reasonable doubt to the greater weight of the evidence. By making these and a few other changes, we could ensure more guilty verdicts.</p><p>The question is: What price are we willing to pay for justice? Would it be better if an innocent person was convicted rather than a guilty person go free?</p><p>Neither the state nor the defendant is entitled to a perfect trial. We do not live in a perfect society and trials are not presided over by perfect judges with perfect jurors. Witnesses do not have perfect memories and the lawyers, be they prosecutors and defense counsel, are not perfect. Mistakes are sometimes made.</p><p>Juries are composed of fair and impartial citizens who are, prior to selection, examined under oath to determine if they can be fair and impartial. All parties involved in the selection process concur and agree with the jurors selected. Jurors take an oath to base their decision solely and only on the evidence and the law, nothing more and nothing less. It has been my experience that all juries do their level best to make their decision based solely on the facts as they find them to be. I, as a judge, make a lot of decisions. Some of my decisions are easy and some are hard, but like the jury the decisions I make are based on the law and the evidence.</p><p>When we criticize the jury for the decisions they make, we lessen the desire of others to serve as jurors and demean those that serve. Before we criticize the jury we should stop and reflect that those who served were the only ones who sat in the courtroom and heard firsthand the witnesses testify and examined the evidence introduced. After selection and before reaching a verdict the jury is instructed not to speak to anyone or read anything about the case. Nor is the jury to discuss the case amongst themselves until they have received the judges final instructions.</p><p>I often wonder how many of those who criticize a jury's verdict started out unbiased and neutral? Did they watch the trial from start to finish? Did they understand the meaning of “reasonable doubt”?</p><p>The jury system, while more than 800 years old, has its problems. However, what alternatives would those critical of the outcome in the trials of George Zimmerman, Casey Anthony or O.J. Simpson suggest?</p><p>I have presided over hundreds of jury trials, and in some cases had I been a member of the jury would have fought for a different verdict. However, rather than criticize those who serve, I thank them for their service and encourage them to serve again. In addition I ask them for suggestions on ways we can improve our system of justice. Far too many citizens look at jury duty not as a service, but as a burden to be avoided. Good citizens make good jurors.</p><p>Jurors are similar to a referee — they call it like they see it based on the rules as they understand them and the way they see the evidence. Should the decision of the referee or umpire be changed because a majority of those present disagree with the call?</p><p>The independence of both the jury and the judiciary today is under attack. Both juries and judges are openly criticized for simply doing what their oath of office requires, i.e., making every decision based solely on the evidence and the law.</p><p>The right to trial by jury is one of the cornerstones of the foundation of freedoms which encompass the people and citizens of the United States. The jury trial is perhaps the strongest pillar of freedom between the individual and his government or, if the case is civil, between you and your neighbor. Citizens of the United States have three vital roles to fill: serving in the armed forces, voting and serving on juries. Our freedom and form of government is dependent upon citizens taking an active part in these three roles. The jury is the conscience of the community and the guardian of all freedom.</p><p>One of the most important protections we have is rooted in the independence of the jury system and the right to be tried by an impartial jury of one's peers. Peers mean equals. Every person who comes into the courtroom in America has the absolute right to have his or her case tried by a jury made up of citizens who are rich and poor, highly educated and unemployed, of every kind of religion.</p><p>In spite of the criticism and contempt we may sometimes have for our criminal justice system, I don't know anyone who would trade our criminal justice system for any other in the world.</p><p>While not perfect, I have never had any juror tell me they have a better way to resolve legal disputes. Until we can come up with a better system of justice, we should stick with the system we have in spite of its imperfections.</p><p><i>Hale R. Stancil is a circuit court for the 5th Judicial Circuit and sits in Ocala. He has been a judge for 31 years.</i></p>